If it isn’t obvious yet, 60-minute meetings are not very practical.

The problem is that we can’t go from one 60-minute meeting to another without a break to enter notes and physically get to the other meeting.  (Much better to do right after the meeting than hours or even days later when so much has been forgotten.)

Even on-line meetings necessitate some time to transition from one meeting to the next.

50-minute meetings are much better than 60s because they give you that all important 10 minutes to digest, record-keep, and transition; and it’s really easy to do.  Having a bit more of time-constraint also helps people keep to agendas.

I’ve been having 50, 25 and 15-minute meetings for over a decade and never once has anyone objected, so give it a try.

Michael Hoffman

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.